Janet, I was neither nasty, nor was my festive comment cowardly, rather it was genuine - yet another example of you finding some form of personal persecution in everything for some unknown reason. I also didn't say you were the very first person to mention Guy's name, rather I said you had spoken about him before he contacted you and thus the contact was not unsolicited - if you're going to try reading between the lines (even when there is nothing hidden there) please try not to twist one's words or make up your own version. I used your own terminology about "your feathers being ruffled". And yes, I said you do come across at times as snobby or rude, but I also said that you probably don't intend it that way - again don't try to twist things. Plenty of people tell me I'm blunt - that's fine with me, I say what I think and don't have time for sugar coating things - I like out and out honesty. I did not say people are all against you I said they are NOT all against you, although it seems that you think or feel that they are. Yes, you do very frequently dis things that family historians want such as access to records, censuses, etc and other people's opinions. Like I say I can only go by what I see as I do not know you in real life - where you may be a perfectly lovely person. I am quite aware of how one can come across different on the internet, than in real life, where we lack gestures, tone of voice, facial expressions and much more that we rely on for communication. I don't have a hard time understanding you because of that - I have a hard time understanding you period - again please don't twist words. I also said that if I knew you better I might understand you better. I said that I found information passed on by Guy both informative and helpful and that I didn't see why you thought his attitude was "cavalier" for exercising his (our) rights regarding FOI and that I, for one, appreciate his input. I added that if you were not happy about using information that may become available to you because of that, that you didn't have to use it. I also fail to see what you mother's plea to with hold a certain piece of information has to do with my understanding you or not. Being sensitive about the skeletons in the closets of those living/recently deceased is not really the same as gathering the facts about one's family history based on new sources being made available with less than 100 years passing. I said I knew you would think I was trying to argue with you, which I wasn't (although that seems to be your usual opinion in my personal experience) and that I didn't think in even a million years I could make you see different as I didn't think you want to see different (which of course is your personal choice). I spoke about laws becoming outdated and even provided you with a link to a (British, seeing as you were most appalled the last time I provided an American link) newspaper outlining how hundreds of pieces of legislation that were no longer appropriate or applicable were being removed. And I closed with: "With kindest regards and warmest wishes for the holiday season (whatever your personal choice) Kia =)". I'm afraid I do not know, nor do I feel it appropriate to ask most people what their views on the holiday season. Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukah, Diwalii or something different, I do not know and so sent warm wishes for the holiday season (whatever your personal choice). -------------------------------------------------- From: "Janet" <wightway@tiscali.co.uk> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:22 PM To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Subject: [ABERDEEN] Fw: Fw: OT: Re: 100 year limit? I have just received a quite nasty private mail from a Lister, at some length with a cowardly festive comment. Acid comments because they say I mentioned Mr. Etchells' name, but I wasnt the first to do so. Check back and see that Ray and Andy wrote about the subject and I wrote in between them so I wasnt the first to mention Mr. Etchells's name. Here's some more of the phraseology: My "feathers apparently get ruffled rather frequently, I am very condescending, quite snobby and rude". Further, "People are all against me and this person has a hard time understanding me because I am against everything most family historians want. "I can only go by what I see on the list" they say. How narrow minded and I have helped others. Quite clearly there are people who like picking on individuals they want to hurt. I also wrote from personal experience that my mother had sent me a plea before she died, about information she didnt want others to know, let alone the whole world on the internet. Can you wonder why after this. Here's the header of Mr. Etchells private mail to me, work out the date and time from the archives here. List posts started on 1st December 2009 and I did not start the thread. Mr. Etchells' mail to me was therefore unsolicited. >----Original Message---- >From: guy.etchells@virgin.net >Date: 05/12/2009 21:09 >To: <wightway@tiscali.co.uk> >Subj: Early release of 1911 census ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Candlish" < andycandlish@ozemail.com.au> | Hi | | The early release of the 1911 England & Wales census was achieved because of | an FOI request by a gentleman called Guy Etchells. | | http://www.yourfamilytreemag.co.uk/page/yft?entry=view_the_1911_census_early | | Whilst there was a petition around that time it was the FOI ruling that led | to the early release. | | http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CensusInfoFreed/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Hennessy" < ray@whatsinaname.net> > > Well, it does, actually, or at least it is supposed to. This is what the > Department of National Statistics website says, quoting from the relevant > Act: > "Personal census information is held securely for 100 years before being > made available to the public." > > The release of the 1911 data 2 years early was a one-off breaking of the > rule and required, I imagine, a special decision by Parliament. There is a > lot of debate behind the scenes about future release dates. With the > population expecting to include thousands of centenarians soon, it is quite > likely that the 100-year embargo will be reinstated. Especially necessary > as the data collected by Census is becoming more and more detailed [and ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message